Debating the Limits to Money Transactions

One of the most frustrating arguments that libertarians face is the seemingly sensible claim that society should proscribe certain things especially because there is unequal access to them or that their consumption and distribution may offend morality. Among the most erudite scholars posing this question is Michael Sandel in his book published last year called, What Money Cant Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. reading that book last year, I deferred to the author's depth in the inquiry but was also frustrated with the view that moral categories must be imposed on all irrespective of the fact that no harm is caused in allowing a poorer person to sell a kidney to a wealthier person in need of it. It is true that in creating a price on organs, society accepts that there will be unequal access will occur.

In an article in late December, John Kay illustrates the absurdity of imposing uniformity by alluding to his payment of €12 to purchase the right to priority boarding on a flight. My view is that paying for kidneys does not of necessity put society on  a slippery path towards slavery because in the latter case, no contracts are willingly executed. there are certainly limits to what money can buy but most democratic societies are hardly close to the limits. As a libertarian, it is clear to me that few markets would survive for a long time if they were completely repugnant to free participants. Thus a market for kidneys and other organs is not the worst thing that could afflict society today. that some markets are not available today is due to lack of innovation and respect for individual freedom and not because of the possibility of exploitation of the powerless or fear of exceeding moral limits.